Support NeoGAF

[Jobbs]

When they tweeted that unboxing video, they took some pretty bad heat from various twitter people.

https://twitter.com/insomniacgames/status/329292194244591616

I don't know if it's necessarily a bad generic shooter, but I think people just don't really expect a generic shooter at all from Insomniac and that's the source of a certain amount of unrest from some fans.

 

[Toppot]

Insomniac games have always been generic and underwhelming. They only got attention by being Sony exclusive. It shouldn't be a shock that without that fact to blind people their games are boring.

R&C was not generic at all when the first 2 games came out, as well at the PS3 games, it is one of the few action platformers left around that isn't 2D or on a Nintendo console.

They got attention for being good games, they consistently score high or very well. Being Sony exclusive meant that Sony gave them very good marketing, had they been multiplatform from since the Spyro days I think they still would've been popular because they were good and would've had a larger fan base for being on more systems.

A majority of people would disagree with you saying their games are boring, Disruptor was a 'Quake/doom' inspired but was actually praised at the time for adding something different to all the clones out there. Original 3 Spyros were good. R&C games are always entertaining (Though I could see A4O not being entertaining for a lot of people). Resistance 1 was good, R2 was a bit lower but had excellent co-op, R3 was alright.

Fair enough it is an opinion, but you need to look around, a minority find Insomniacs games boring, underwhelming or generic.

The Fuse demo is out soon, go into it with clear mind and see how you feel about it.

 

[RoboGeorgeForeman]

R&C was not generic at all when the first 2 games came out, as well at the PS3 games, it is one of the few action platformers left around that isn't 2D or on a Nintendo console.

They got attention for being good games, they consistently score high or very well. Being Sony exclusive meant that Sony gave them very good marketing, had they been multiplatform from since the Spyro days I think they still would've been popular because they were good and would've had a larger fan base for being on more systems.

A majority of people would disagree with you saying their games are boring, Disruptor was a 'Quake/doom' inspired but was actually praised at the time for adding something different to all the clones out there. Original 3 Spyros were good. R&C games are always entertaining (Though I could see A4O not being entertaining for a lot of people). Resistance 1 was good, R2 was a bit lower but had excellent co-op, R3 was alright.

Fair enough it is an opinion, but you need to look around, a minority find Insomniacs games boring, underwhelming or generic.

The Fuse demo is out soon, go into it with clear mind and see how you feel about it.

I agree that Insomniac is a pretty good dev (although I don't really see much of anything to like about this game), but scoring high and being popular doesn't mean a damn thing to me nowadays.

 

[Toppot]

I agree that Insomniac is a pretty good dev (although I don't really see much of anything to like about this game), but scoring high and being popular doesn't mean a damn thing to me nowadays.

I can take your point on being popular maybe not carrying much weight. But as for scores, they are a metric where we can take them all and get an average. Of course how fun or good a game is always subjective person by person. But if you take them congregate scores and get an average, you have some objective way of saying 'people think this game is good'.

I think this is a better metric of 'good', rather than individuals takes on Insomniacs entire catalogue in a statement or 2.

Average scores of their games based of around 45 critics scores and around 100 user ratings. [Metacritic only has scores for 1 Spyro game so the Spyro series is not included].

I think you can look at something like that and say with evidence 'Insomniacs games have generally gotten worse over time'. Then there are other things you can say like 'Mainline R&C games score very well, where as spinoff's (Q4B, A4O and FFA) don't score as well.' All have scored 59 or over be it user or metacritic score.

I would rather trust the data as a whole of individuals opinions than an individuals opinion.

The person I was replying to said their games are 'boring' that might be their opinion, but overall data shows that the games are very entertaining. I don't think boring games score 80+ without being entertaining =P